How should America go about winning the war on terror ? Your suggestions

[Japher]

Wild E. Coyote and The Roadrunner rule!!!

To beat terrorism we need to continue are efforts to destroy those who would destroy us, and to get disney to make an Islamic movie and sell the toys through McDonalds all over the Middle East.

[Q Classic]

if i recall correctly, turkey's democracy was force, but forced from within, without an invasion.

that was slightly more successful than externally forced democratization in afghanistan and iraq, thus far.

[Japher]

you gotta brainwash 'em first, and that is done by forcing cultural values on to the people. Once a place get McDs they usually become a democracy within 5 years... Still waiting on China though.

[DinoDoc]

We didn't go into Afghanistan to install a democracy. We went to crush the Taliban and squash Al-qaeda's presence there.

[Q Classic]

so with those responses, i wonder what ned has to say now ?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Richelieu
How should America go about winning the war on terror?

Become what you are pretending to be. Build that shining city on the hill. If you build it, they will come...

Exactly.

In the 1990s, the US was seen as the country to emulate, it was a global leader. Osama was a fringe lunatic that no one paid much attention to and who didn't have much support even in Muslim countries. People were too busy chasing the "American Dream". All that has changed. Osama suckered the US and the US has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

[Tingkai]

PS, it is impossible to fight and defeat terrorists because it impossible to kill everyone of them. The military approach is self-defeating.

The way to win is on the economic front. This is how the US won the Cold War and the sad irony is that the US has not learned from its victories and instead chooses to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Heresson]

I think Middle East hated America long before WTC

[Tingkai]

Did the people in Jordan hate the US? Where was the public support for the terrorists who murdered tourists in Egypt?

Yes, there were many crazed terrorirsts in the Middle East, but wide-spread support was lacking until the US attacked Iraq.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Tingkai
In the 1990s, the US was seen as the country to emulate, it was a global leader. Osama was a fringe lunatic that no one paid much attention to and who didn't have much support even in Muslim countries.

Wrong. You are forgetting all the terrorist attacks Osama sponsored in the 90's, like the first WTC attack and the attack against the Cole. Osama was growing in the 90's and we did not stop him.

That's the problem: during the 90's we were complacent. Everybody was enjoying the booming Clinton economy and forgetting about the growing threat of Osama and Al Queda. He attacked us repeatedly but we did little to stop him because we did not want to disturb the peace and prosperity.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf


Yes, Rome did give us great battle stories and the Shakespearan Drama of Cleopatra, Caesar and Mark Antony, but thats not quite the same.

...errrr, didn't Engand give us the Shakespearan..blah, blah, blah........

[Fake Boris]

I still don't get why Osama should be seen as such a huge threat. What he did was overall pretty much insignificant. Terrorism is a marginal force. It seems like the Americans' willingness to shoot at windmills is akin to a rise of fascism.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I still don't get why Osama should be seen as such a huge threat. What he did was overall pretty much insignificant. Terrorism is a marginal force. It seems like the Americans' willingness to shoot at windmills is akin to a rise of fascism.

How can you say such a thing? Don't you care about the 3000 lives that were lost on 9-11? That's not "insignificant". No life is insignificant.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


One example: Your soldiers quite often kill people who stopped by the road to let military convoys pass, just because it could be an ambush. If they would take the risk to hold your fire until there actually is an ambush, less innocents would die, and less bitter orphans would become terrorist.

Stop exaggerating.

[Fake Boris]

Three things

a) the usual bore: this is significantly less than the deaths created avery year by US supported dictators and unfair application of international trade laws, bla bla bla. You know that.

b) most of these deaths can be avoided by efficient security services and/or sound policy. France never had to invade any country to counter the wave of terrorism it faced in the past.

c) **** happens, 3,000 persons is really not that much by worldwide standards, and overall the attacks didn't have any significant impact on America apart from the usual media-propelled 'emotional purging' that arises from personal tragedies.

If you think getting Osama is fun, then do it, but it seems like the money is barely worth it, except of course if you believe in some sort of retarded retributivist conception of justice when a moral balance has somehow to be restored everytime a crime is commited.